Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the first Commons debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which I welcome. The new Transport Committee decided that its first inquiry would be on “Buses connecting communities” to address the rural and non-city services across England outside London. We have completed our evidence gathering and our report will be published before too long. The oral and written evidence we received is tagged to today’s Order Paper and is available via a link on the Committee website.

Poor bus services affect the constituents of almost every constituency in England outside London, judging by the interest in the issue during the election of the Chair of the Committee last September and in the attendance today. Whether Members’ constituencies are rural, mid-sized cities, suburban or in the London commuter belt, the interest in this issue is significant. In England outside London, there has been an overall decline in bus use of 63% since 2002. Car travel is now not only the main form of travel, but in many places it is the only way to get around, particularly early, late and at weekends. For those who are unable to drive or access a car, the lack of decent, or indeed any, bus services means that they are stuck at home or at the mercy of family, neighbours or expensive taxis.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend could be describing my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, many parts of which are poorly served by buses. Does she agree that the way forward is to give local leaders the power to determine routes and support them to work with private companies?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will come on to that, but yes. For a Labour Government with a focus on growth, opportunity and clean energy, it is essential to transform bus services across England to make them more reliable, more accessible and better integrated into the fabric of local communities. That is important to ensure that residents of rural areas are not left behind, to support the growth and regeneration aspirations of our towns away from major conurbations, and to make sure that the most vulnerable have equal access and ability to travel.

In its inquiry, the Committee has received valuable evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. When we looked at the impact of declining bus services, we heard evidence that described local bus services in 2025 as a “barrier” to opportunity rather than an “enabler”. We heard that the future of many services remains “precarious”. From a local authority perspective, the situation was described as “challenging”. We also heard about the economic hit to many town centres from fewer buses; if people cannot travel, they do not spend in local shops and businesses. This Bill is not a magic wand, however. For instance, the Local Government Association told us that

“successful implementation will require practical support and local flexibility from central government.”

I will address four key areas, the first of which is improved integration and co-ordination. Passenger groups told us that they need a system that works together as a whole, rather than the patchwork of disconnected services that they see at present. I therefore welcome the focus on enhanced partnerships and franchising powers for local authorities. The franchising model has long been used in London, and it has been seen more recently in Greater Manchester through the Bee Network. Franchising and even enhanced partnerships should make for co-ordinated timetables, simplified fare structures and greater accountability in service delivery so that passengers no longer have to navigate a confusing web of different operators, routes and fare structures.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will press on, because I will be frowned at if I take too many interventions.

On community engagement and local needs, our inquiry was told that services should be shaped by the voices of those who rely on them, ensuring that routes are designed to connect communities, not just city centres, and that they connect rural and isolated communities. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of local bus service improvement plans, which will ensure that local authorities can work with operators to tailor services to the unique needs of the communities they serve. Will the Bill ensure that service user groups are an integral part of both the design and the review of local services?

I move on to sustainability and green transport. The Transport Secretary reiterated just now that buses have a vital role to play in the transition to greener and more sustainable transport, as well as in cutting pollution in busy streets and reducing car dependency. If my constituency experience is anything to go by, getting adequate EV charging capacity to bus depots must be a priority. Although that is perhaps not a feature of the Bill, I use this opportunity to ask whether the Minister will work with bus operators and power networks to address that challenge for bus depots.

On affordability and accessibility, if there is to be transformational change to the bus system in England, buses have to be there for those who cannot drive or cannot afford to own and run a car. A not insignificant proportion of the population are left out, yet they need to get to work, to college, to the shops, to services and to doctors’ appointments, and they have to have a social and family life. Even if a local area is served by reliable bus services, that is no use if people cannot get on or off them, if they do not feel safe or if they cannot afford the fare.

Although I welcome references to affordability and accessibility, I have some questions based on our buses inquiry and the evidence to it, and on our “Access denied” report, the work on which was mainly completed by our predecessor Committee. Clause 14 requires local transport authorities operating in enhanced partnerships to identify socially necessary services. That is welcome, but in their evidence to us, operators and local authorities had questions about how that would play out. Having defined those services, will local authorities be held to ransom for their continuation, regardless of cost?

Accessibility means more than the design of buses and bus stops; it includes the usability of digital information, maps and timetables, without excluding those who do not have a smartphone or cannot get a mobile signal. We were told that guidance on accessibility must encourage rather than discourage innovation. Although clauses relating to staff training in accessibility are welcome, we were told that guidance must set out clearer expectations about the nature of training that is to be provided. It must be of a guaranteed minimum standard and proven effectiveness, not a tick-box exercise that enables people to say that they have done the training.

The Bill does not appear to address the accessibility barriers that prevent most people who use class 3 mobility scooters from travelling on bus services. Furthermore, will it make reference to the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000?

As has been mentioned, it is also unclear whether express coaches and closed-door school services are covered by the Bill.

On amendments passed in the other place, will the Secretary of State have another chance to look at implementing a “Vision Zero” deaths and injuries goal for the bus sector?

The elephant in the room is funding. There is not a country in the world that has a self-funding bus service. We went to Ireland, where Government policy provides that the vast majority in rural Ireland are linked to their nearest town by at least three return bus journeys per day. Even London’s buses survive on cross-subsidy from the tube system. Unless and until we have a robust economy where local authorities have the funding to deliver an Ireland level of bus provision, this Bill is the start and not the magic bullet in delivering the affordable, accessible and comprehensive bus network across England that we all aspire to.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.

I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities.

Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities.

The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time.

Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”:

“along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services.

The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In addition to the point about socially necessary routes, companies such as Stagecoach cut the frequency of essential buses—such as the No. 2 from Exeter through to Dawlish in my constituency and on down towards Paignton. That drives people away from the buses; when the frequency goes down from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes, it makes the service unusable and takes away the social value of the route.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is entirely correct.

Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.